Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[Taylor]

My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.

You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.

No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.

No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.

There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.

FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!

The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.

But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!

Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?

Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?

So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?

And you don't if anyone will not be.

You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.

No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?

No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953

Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff

So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!

No one said you were thick or claimed a moral superiority.

Given you said folk in care homes have no choice but to be collateral damage I questioned if you knew what collateral damage was given there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this is the case.

You simply made up they would be collateral damage because you dont agree with the vaccine or you dont understand what collateral damage means?

It has to be one or the other unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?

[Seaney]

So in short....

COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.

Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.

Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?

Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population

Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!

[Seaney]

My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.

You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.

No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.

No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.

There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.

FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!

The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.

But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!

Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?

Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?

So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?

And you don't if anyone will not be.

You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.

No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?

No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953

Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff

So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!

No one said you were thick or claimed a moral superiority.

Given you said folk in care homes have no choice but to be collateral damage I questioned if you knew what collateral damage was given there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this is the case.

You simply made up they would be collateral damage because you dont agree with the vaccine or you dont understand what collateral damage means?

It has to be one or the other unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?

Most folk are in a care home for a reason, they have serious complicated health issues, if any have complications as a result of this vaccine I am sure their will be outrage!

[sid waddell]

I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity.  The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.

While I have pretty much no doubt the vaccine/s will be entirely safe, the UK Government is so discredited and so untrustworthy in general that it's unfortunate they were the first ones to ratify this Pfizer one

Their association with anything is toxic and could lead to at least a degree of what is almostly certainly unwarranted scepticism among otherwise sensible people

Hopefully the EU ratifies it soon

[trueblue1234]

My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.

You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.

No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.

No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.

There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.

FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!

The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.

But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!

Do they not have to get family consent?

No idea yet to see the policy except patients in care homes are priority, what of ones who have no family, I can't see it being anything other than mandatory in care homes, but hey out of sight out of mind eh!

It's not. Family consent is required. If in the case of no family, if a care home patient has sound mind they make the decision themselves. If not, as per the Mental capacity act the decision will be made for them in their best interests.

Hope that puts your mind at ease.

[Taylor]

My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.

You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.

No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.

No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.

There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.

FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!

The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.

But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!

Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?

Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?

So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?

And you don't if anyone will not be.

You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.

No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?

No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953

Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff

So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!

No one said you were thick or claimed a moral superiority.

Given you said folk in care homes have no choice but to be collateral damage I questioned if you knew what collateral damage was given there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this is the case.

You simply made up they would be collateral damage because you dont agree with the vaccine or you dont understand what collateral damage means?

It has to be one or the other unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?

Most folk are in a care home for a reason, they have serious complicated health issues, if any have complications as a result of this vaccine I am sure their will be outrage!

Well done on avoiding the question.

So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.

[Chief]

My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.

You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.

No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.

No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.

There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.

FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!

The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.

But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!

Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?

Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?

So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?

And you don't if anyone will not be.

You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.

No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?

No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953

Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff

So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!

Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.

You can sleep easy now.

You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.

The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.

[Seaney]

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1202/1181886-coronavirus-vaccine-eu/

Brits going for a political statement ahead of anything!

[Seaney]

Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.

You can sleep easy now.

You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.

The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.

Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.

[Seaney]

Well done on avoiding the question.

So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.

It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.

[Seaney]

It's not. Family consent is required. If in the case of no family, if a care home patient has sound mind they make the decision themselves. If not, as per the Mental capacity act the decision will be made for them in their best interests.

Hope that puts your mind at ease.

It does if correct, didn't see this guidance, so in the case of no consent will they be allowed to remain in the care home, the bit in bold means mandatory vaccines in reality. 

[Taylor]

Well done on avoiding the question.

So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.

It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.

It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.

You have not provided any evidence of the sort.

Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.

I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.

Who are you going with?

[RedHand88]

Well done on avoiding the question.

So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.

It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.

It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.

You have not provided any evidence of the sort.

Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.

I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.

Who are you going with?

I'll tell you who he's following.

Jim Corr, Gemma "Gemtrails" O'Doherty and some Ohio soccer mom on Facebook who shared a debunked pseudoscientific "research paper."

[Chief]

Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.

You can sleep easy now.

You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.

The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.

Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.

In our discussions we've established:

1) The vaccine is effective;
2) The vast scientific majority think it is safe;
3) These experts were not the same experts who modelled infection rates or developed lockdown measures
4) That it won't be mandatory;
5) People like me that would have been happy to have paid for it will not be allowed to do so;
6)  Anybody that wants it should have it within a couple of months - again nobody will be forced.
7) That you know little to nothing about the laws surrounding Director Dealing(s) and when CEO's can and cannot sell shares.

Your last stand here seems to be though inventing hypothetical scenarios about vulnerable old people being head locked and hood winked into getting it.

You are clutching at straws big time.

[lenny]

Well done on avoiding the question.

So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.

It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.

It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.

You have not provided any evidence of the sort.

Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.

I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.

Who are you going with?

I'll tell you who he's following.

Jim Corr, Gemma "Gemtrails" O'Doherty and some Ohio soccer mom on Facebook who shared a debunked pseudoscientific "research paper."

Lol, don't forget David icke. He's made a big comeback with the science deniers.